{"id":45332,"date":"2008-10-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harbhajan-singh-and-others-vs-financial-commissioner-on-31-october-2008"},"modified":"2017-08-10T00:47:59","modified_gmt":"2017-08-09T19:17:59","slug":"harbhajan-singh-and-others-vs-financial-commissioner-on-31-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harbhajan-singh-and-others-vs-financial-commissioner-on-31-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"Harbhajan Singh And Others vs Financial Commissioner on 31 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Harbhajan Singh And Others vs Financial Commissioner on 31 October, 2008<\/div>\n
Civil Writ Petition No. 15932 of 2006                                     1\n\n\n     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                     CHANDIGARH\n                                       --\n\n                                 Civil Writ Petition No. 15932 of 2006\n                                 Date of decision: 31.10.2008\n\nHarbhajan Singh and others                                ........Petitioners\n\n              Versus\n\nFinancial Commissioner, Co-operation, Punjab, Chandigarh and others\n\n                                                           .....Respondents\n\nCoram:        Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.S.Khehar\n              Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur\n                               -.-\n\nPresent:      Mr. G S Nagra, Advocate\n              for the petitioners\n\n              Mr. Parveen Chander Goyal, Sr. DAG, Punjab\n              for respondents No. 1 to 4\n\n              Mr. G S Gandhi , Advocate\n              for respondents 5 and 6\n                     -.-\n\nNirmaljit Kaur, J.\n<\/pre>\n
              Petitioners filed an application under Section 11 of the Punjab<\/p>\n
Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’) for<\/p>\n
partition   of the land measuring 455 kanals 10 marlas, situated in the<\/p>\n
revenue estate of village Jiwan Nangal, Hadbast No. 138 in the court of<\/p>\n
Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Nakodar on 06.11.2001.         The proposed<\/p>\n
mode of partition was prepared on 08.07.2003, which included the<\/p>\n
following Clause 2:-\n<\/p>\n
            “The partition will be effected keeping in view the<\/p>\n
            possession intact as far as the same is possible. But the land
\n Civil Writ Petition No. 15932 of 2006                                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
           falling on Nakodar-Jalandhar road will be partitioned<\/p>\n
           proportionately between all the co sharers.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Nakodar, approved the aforesaid mode<\/p>\n
of partition vide order dated 28.07.2003. Thereafter, on an appeal filed<\/p>\n
before the Collector by respondents No. 5 and 6, the matter was remanded<\/p>\n
back to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Nakodar. The Assistant Collector<\/p>\n
Ist Grade, once again, approved the mode of partition after visiting the spot<\/p>\n
and hearing the parties vide order dated 09.03.2005 (Annexure P-6). The<\/p>\n
revision preferred by the petitioners against the aforesaid order was also<\/p>\n
dismissed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, vide order<\/p>\n
dated 04.05.2006 (Annexure P-8). The Financial Commissioner Co-<\/p>\n
operation, Punjab also dismissed the revision petition preferred by the<\/p>\n
petitioners, in limine.\n<\/p>\n
             Learned counsel for the petitioners has mainly pleaded that the<\/p>\n
Assistant Grade Ist Grade, Nakodar, has amended the clause 2 of the<\/p>\n
previous mode of partition to the extent that the partition will be effected<\/p>\n
after keeping the possession intact, and the remaining part of the Clause 2,<\/p>\n
i.e. “this land is most valuable and should be partitioned according to the<\/p>\n
shares of the parties” was deleted and out of the total land, 7 \u00bd acres of<\/p>\n
land falls on the main metallic road, is most valuable land. Secondly, it is<\/p>\n
vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the<\/p>\n
finding of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade as also of the Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority that there was a family partition between the parties, is totally<\/p>\n
against the law and record of the case. The family partition so arrived at<\/p>\n
between the parties, becomes valid only if the same is brought to the notice
\n Civil Writ Petition No. 15932 of 2006                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
of the revenue authorities and sanction is obtained in terms of Section 123<\/p>\n
of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887.\n<\/p>\n
            In order to support his arguments, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioners has relied upon the judgements rendered in the cases of ‘Banta<\/p>\n
Singh and others v. Hardeep Singh and others<\/a>‘, 1987(2) PLR-329 and<\/p>\n
‘Chander Bhan v. Hari Ram and others<\/a>‘, 1996(PLJ) 69. The aforesaid<\/p>\n
judgements do not help the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the<\/p>\n
present case.\n<\/p>\n
            Learned counsel for respondents No. 5 and 6 has disputed the<\/p>\n
same and denied that the land in question is in joint possession between the<\/p>\n
parties, rather each of the shareholders is in possession of the respective<\/p>\n
shares, as demarcated and settled by Gurbax Singh, original owner, way<\/p>\n
back in the year 1985 between each of his sons. This partition has been<\/p>\n
accepted and given effect to. This contention of the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
respondents No. 5 and 6 finds support from the rapt No. 581 dated<\/p>\n
16.10.1985 (Annexure R-5\/1).      Vide rapat No. 232 dated 17.03.1993,<\/p>\n
petitioner-Harbhajan Singh gave statement to the effect that earlier khasra<\/p>\n
girdawari in respect of killa No. 7\/21, be got recorded in favour of<\/p>\n
Kulwinder Pal Singh son of Surjit Singh, who is on the spot cultivating this<\/p>\n
khasra number. This statement was made before Jaspal Singh, Numberdar<\/p>\n
of Village Nangal Jiwan and Surinderpal Singh, Chowkidar. The aforesaid<\/p>\n
statement of Harbhajan Singh is annexed as Annexure R-5\/2. Other<\/p>\n
petitioner, Paramjit Singh, moved an application dated 02.12.1993<\/p>\n
(Annexure R 5\/3) before the Sub Divisional Officer (C), Nakodar, praying
\n Civil Writ Petition No. 15932 of 2006                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
for change of electric motor connection bearing No. SD-124 in favour of<\/p>\n
Harbhajan Singh son of Gurbax Singh. Paramjit Singh was given electric<\/p>\n
connection bearing No. SD1\/124, whereas Harbhajan Singh was given<\/p>\n
electric connection bearing No. SD1\/125, which were installed in No. 286<\/p>\n
and 287 of their respective holdings. Thus, the petitioner cannot deny the<\/p>\n
family partition having been arrived at between the parties.<\/p>\n
            Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.\n<\/p>\n
            Section 123 of the Act reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
             “123. Affirmation of partition privately affected- (1) in any<\/p>\n
             case in which a partition has been made without the<\/p>\n
             intervention of a Revenue Officer, any part thereto may<\/p>\n
             apply to a Revenue Officer for an order affirming the<\/p>\n
             partition. (2) On receiving the application, the Revenue<\/p>\n
             Officer shall inquire into the case, and if he finds that the<\/p>\n
             partition has in fact been made, he may make an order<\/p>\n
             affirming it and proceed under Sections 119, 120, 121 and<\/p>\n
             122, or any of those sections, as circumstances may<\/p>\n
             require, in the same manner as if the partition had been<\/p>\n
             made on an application to himself under this Chapter.”<\/p>\n
            Section 123 of the Act has already been interpreted by the<\/p>\n
learned Single Judge of this Court in Regular First Appeal titled as<\/p>\n
‘Ajmer Singh v. Dharam Singh’,<\/a> 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 541 in the<\/p>\n
following terms:-\n<\/p>\n
             “16. A perusal of the said provision would show that<\/p>\n
             Section 123 of the Act is a provision for affirmation of
\n Civil Writ Petition No. 15932 of 2006                                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
            partition privately affected. Chapter IX of the Act deals<\/p>\n
            with both situation, i.e., where intervention is sought of<\/p>\n
            the revenue authority for partition of the land and for a<\/p>\n
            situation where the parties effect partition privately. A<\/p>\n
            further reading of Section 123 of the Act shows that<\/p>\n
            liberty is given to any party who “may” apply to a<\/p>\n
            revenue officer for an order confirming partition. Sub-<\/p>\n
            section (2) contemplates an enquiry to find out whether<\/p>\n
            the partition, in fact, has been made. If partition has<\/p>\n
            been made, the revenue officer has to distribute the<\/p>\n
            revenue and the rent after partition and draw the<\/p>\n
            instrument of partition.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            18.   In view of the above binding precedents, it is<\/p>\n
            apparent that the revenue record by itself neither create<\/p>\n
            or extinguish title. Since co-owners by mutual consent<\/p>\n
            have entered into separate portions of land and are in the<\/p>\n
            enjoyment of their respect portions, merely       the said<\/p>\n
            private partition has not been formally affirmed will not<\/p>\n
            relegate the parties to pre-partition status. The role of<\/p>\n
            the revenue officer in section 123 of the Act is that of<\/p>\n
            “affirmation” of partition. The said affirmation is subject<\/p>\n
            to verification of the factum of partition only.       The<\/p>\n
            inquiry in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 123 of the<\/p>\n
            Act is restricted to the effect to point out that, in fact,<\/p>\n
            partition has been made. Therefore, non affirmation of
\n Civil Writ Petition No. 15932 of 2006                                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
             partition by the revenue officer will not render a private<\/p>\n
             partition redundant but such affirmation will only<\/p>\n
             determine the rights of an owner in respect of their<\/p>\n
             obligations to pay land revenue to the State in terms of<\/p>\n
             the provisions of the Act.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
While holding the same, learned Single Judge has relied upon judgements<\/p>\n
rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of ‘Sankalchan<\/p>\n
Jaychandbhai Patel and others v. Vithalbhai Jaychandbhaii Patel and<\/p>\n
others<\/a>‘, (1997) 1 RCR (Civil) 565 and ‘Baleshwar Tewari (dead) by Lrs<\/p>\n
and others v. Sheo Jatan Tiwary and others,’ (1997) 5 Supreme Court<\/p>\n
Cases 112.\n<\/p>\n
             Thus, in the present case also documents R5\/1 to R5\/4 shows<\/p>\n
that the family partition had been given effect to from the time when the<\/p>\n
original owner, Gurbax Singh, was alive. Further, on an appeal filed by<\/p>\n
respondents No. 5 and 6 against the order dated 28.07.2003, the Collector,<\/p>\n
Nakodar, vide order dated 27.02.2004 (Annexure P-2), remanded the<\/p>\n
matter back to the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade with a direction to assess<\/p>\n
the value of the land after visiting the spot and to prepare a mode of<\/p>\n
partition again after hearing the parties. Pursuant thereto, the Assistant<\/p>\n
Collector, Ist grade had prepared a fresh mode of partition after visiting the<\/p>\n
spot, as well as, hearing the parties on 20.01.2005 (Annexure P-3). At that<\/p>\n
time, only Daljit Singh-petitioner No.3 had filed objections. Even<\/p>\n
otherwise, the mode of partition is correctly approved, as per the<\/p>\n
possession at the spot and keeping in mind that all the co-sharers are<\/p>\n
already in possession of the land of their respective shares. The parties
\n Civil Writ Petition No. 15932 of 2006                                   7<\/span><\/p>\n
have installed their separate tubewells for irrigation of the land; have also<\/p>\n
separate residence and are separately in possession in equal share. As<\/p>\n
such, the present mode of partition is only an affirmation of the partition<\/p>\n
privately effected between the parties. The revenue authorities will now<\/p>\n
give sanction, in terms of Section 123 of the Act, referred to above.<\/p>\n
            In this view of the matter, we find no ground to interfere with<\/p>\n
the impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities and the mode of<\/p>\n
partition so approved by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Nakodar, which<\/p>\n
has been affirmed up to the Financial Commissioner.<\/p>\n
            Dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          [Nirmaljit Kaur]
\n                                                                Judge<\/p>\n
                                                            [J.S.Khehar]
\n                                                                Judge
\nOctober 31, 2008
\nmohan\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Harbhajan Singh And Others vs Financial Commissioner on 31 October, 2008 Civil Writ Petition No. 15932 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH — Civil Writ Petition No. 15932 of 2006 Date of decision: 31.10.2008 Harbhajan Singh and others ……..Petitioners Versus Financial Commissioner, Co-operation, Punjab, Chandigarh […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-45332","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nHarbhajan Singh And Others vs Financial Commissioner on 31 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harbhajan-singh-and-others-vs-financial-commissioner-on-31-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Harbhajan Singh And Others vs Financial Commissioner on 31 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harbhajan-singh-and-others-vs-financial-commissioner-on-31-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-10-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-09T19:17:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harbhajan-singh-and-others-vs-financial-commissioner-on-31-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harbhajan-singh-and-others-vs-financial-commissioner-on-31-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Harbhajan Singh And Others vs Financial Commissioner on 31 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-09T19:17:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harbhajan-singh-and-others-vs-financial-commissioner-on-31-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1473,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harbhajan-singh-and-others-vs-financial-commissioner-on-31-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harbhajan-singh-and-others-vs-financial-commissioner-on-31-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harbhajan-singh-and-others-vs-financial-commissioner-on-31-october-2008\",\"name\":\"Harbhajan Singh And Others vs Financial Commissioner on 31 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-09T19:17:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harbhajan-singh-and-others-vs-financial-commissioner-on-31-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harbhajan-singh-and-others-vs-financial-commissioner-on-31-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harbhajan-singh-and-others-vs-financial-commissioner-on-31-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Harbhajan Singh And Others vs Financial Commissioner on 31 October, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Harbhajan Singh And Others vs Financial Commissioner on 31 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harbhajan-singh-and-others-vs-financial-commissioner-on-31-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Harbhajan Singh And Others vs Financial Commissioner on 31 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harbhajan-singh-and-others-vs-financial-commissioner-on-31-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-09T19:17:59+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harbhajan-singh-and-others-vs-financial-commissioner-on-31-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harbhajan-singh-and-others-vs-financial-commissioner-on-31-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Harbhajan Singh And Others vs Financial Commissioner on 31 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-09T19:17:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harbhajan-singh-and-others-vs-financial-commissioner-on-31-october-2008"},"wordCount":1473,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harbhajan-singh-and-others-vs-financial-commissioner-on-31-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harbhajan-singh-and-others-vs-financial-commissioner-on-31-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harbhajan-singh-and-others-vs-financial-commissioner-on-31-october-2008","name":"Harbhajan Singh And Others vs Financial Commissioner on 31 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-09T19:17:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harbhajan-singh-and-others-vs-financial-commissioner-on-31-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harbhajan-singh-and-others-vs-financial-commissioner-on-31-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harbhajan-singh-and-others-vs-financial-commissioner-on-31-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Harbhajan Singh And Others vs Financial Commissioner on 31 October, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45332","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=45332"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45332\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=45332"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=45332"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=45332"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}